Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yjftsjthsd-h 1096 days ago
> Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it.

To be clear, if they don't provide source code of GPL software to customers, that's an actual outright violation of the license.
1 comments
LaSombra 1095 days ago
Correct. But don't you have to be an owner of their products to ask for the GPL'ed code?
link
pabs3 1095 days ago
No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them. The Software Freedom Conservancy are also working on a case using the legal theory that downstream recipients of GPLed code are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL agreement between the copyright holder and the redistributor, and as such, they are entitled to the source code and can sue for it. Hopefully they win, send them some donations towards legal costs if you want to help out.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

link
yjftsjthsd-h 1095 days ago
> No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them.

Curious; I was quite sure that only recipients of binaries (basically, users of the program) were entitled to get source code, but the relevant part of the GPLv2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html) at least looks like:

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 
    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 
    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
which does indeed seem to suggest that if you're not preemptively shipping source to customers along with the binaries then "any third party" can ask for the code. Which is interesting context here; it would be interesting to hear an actual lawyer's reading of the situation, because that feels like such a big difference that it should have come up already.
link